Skepticism and The Normal

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, it has become perfectly isolated through the tit for tat strategy I have been using. Thank you for observing that. at this point, my strategy was succesful, yet you could still be correct, and I mistaken, yet my strategy was succesful because of the third value. Interesting, no?

I'd take the fact that this thread is over 900 posts to be a pretty clear example of the lack of utility in your third value.

yes, and please pay close attention to your usage here. You said 'I feel. That's your own personal intuition, your own inner guidance, your own unique point of view.I'm not trying to take that away from you. You can have that, I am not in conflict with that.

I said, "I feel," because I was stating an opinion and wanted to be clear that I was not attempting to present a tautology. You are in conflict with it because you are claiming that your three value system is 'more correct'.

I may be mistaken here about my observation, and if so please correct me, but I am being 100% honest in revealing my personal observation. I observe that it is your intuition because you simply have no objective rebuttal logically or rationally, i.e. there is no rational reason to disagree with applying the third value to real world scenarios. There may be philosophical reasons which have rational arguments relative to the philosophy, but they are not relevant nor logical to real world scenarios.

That my training in formal logic is not sufficient to allow me to phrase my critique within a formal logic framework does not give you permission to assume it is purely opinion and disregard it as being such.

My argument is simply that you can evaluate it, critically, logically, rationally, devoid of mysticism and irrationality, to uncover further knowledge by understanding the relative quality of the third value.

Go back to your Al Sadr example. What value does your "third value" bring to the table in evaluating either, or both, of the claims as to his geographic location?

It's first and foremost a logical and rational argument, a product of critical thinking, and an intuitive grasp and surrender to it's open qualities and ease of use.

Only if all other aspects are equal between two logic systems should ease of use be a factor.

That's fine Arkan, I can accept that's how it appears to you right now, and that's perfectly understandable. I have spent 4 years in hard thinking/practice on this, and I can tell you from personal experience, the argument doenst come easily at first. But I do believe it's important to make the argument none the less, if not for the simple benifit of advancing clear and rational thinking, which I know we both wish to do.

Drop the guru bs.

Can you define in your own words what you invision my claims to be about Steorn and Randi?

Go read your own OP if you don't remember.

Arkan, I'm not saying you dont have an argument that you believe to be logical to support your point of view. I'm pretty clear on the logical steps one can take to come to almost any conclusion, that's what i do. I'm saying if we want to be critical thinkers, holding rationality to a very high ideal, then our language and thinking must come to reflect a state of perfect certainty as a foundation.We can only have perfect certainty at the foundation when we accept we dont honestly know for any objective certainty.

Wheeee, more solipism bs.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thought experiment.


One honest man, and 100 liars, cheats, and thieves, all in one room negotiating.

Do the 100 liars notice that the honest man is honest?


How can they tell?

Mu. Your example provides no information to suggest that honesty or dishonesty has any bearing on the negotiations.

 

[WWHP]

Please note my thought experiment in relationship to my reply to arkan.

I'd take the fact that this thread is over 900 posts to be a pretty clear example of the lack of utility in your third value.

It didnt take 900 posts to isolate your argument, it just took the sum of your and my posts together.

I said, "I feel," because I was stating an opinion and wanted to be clear that I was not attempting to present a tautology. You are in conflict with it because you are claiming that your three value system is 'more correct'.

I am in conflict with it as an objective idea, not a personal opinion. And yes, i'm saying the argument for supporting a binary logic over a ternary one in real world problems is not fully rational, you are correct.

That my training in formal logic is not sufficient to allow me to phrase my critique within a formal logic framework does not give you permission to assume it is purely opinion and disregard it as being such.

Your telling me it's your personal opinion! I am only going on your words.

Go back to your Al Sadr example. What value does your "third value" bring to the table in evaluating either, or both, of the claims as to his geographic location?

His location is unknown. The point of view of each statement can be deconstructed to consider propaganda, or honest critical statement. By understanding the point of view that each statement comes from, we can begin to asses the higher strategy of both sides for certain.

Only if all other aspects are equal between two logic systems should ease of use be a factor.

agreed. that's what I said.

Drop the guru bs.

Note: The liars and cheats thought experiment. How do 100 liars view the honest man in the negotiation?

Go read your own OP if you don't remember.

Oh I remember clearly my argument, i suspect you dont. I suspect your viewing my argument through your 'guru' goggles and most likely can't duplicate my argument into your own language.

Wheeee, more solipism bs.

If you dont like it, then take off your solipism bs goggles, and approach this with open eyes, not mystical confusions.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Mu. Your example provides no information to suggest that honesty or dishonesty has any bearing on the negotiations.

it's assumed. negotiation is discussion. honest discussion and dishonest discussions are distinctions inside of all discussions. Reactions to honest discussions and dishonest discussions are distinct in all discussions. Perception or the value of honest or dishonest information, however, is also distinct between honest and dishonest people

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Bubblefish, have you ever posted on these forums using any of the following usernames: Iacchus, Interesting Ian, Christophera, or Killtown?

 

[Z]

in princaple, I know what comes next. In practice, I have experienced what comes next, in scientific experiment, it's still an unknown. Thanks for clarifying the third value.

Then you should be able to honestly say what comes next. That you have not done so tells us quite a bit.

I dont have to demonstrate it, it's irrelevant to me that you believe me or you dont, I'm not here looking for believers, I am here looking for anti-thesis.

So?

Ever hear of Open Source or P2P?

Used it, too. And as a general model, it failed. The use of Open Source and P2P has been dwindling continuously - precisely because there are some unwilling to share resources fairly.

Thank you for proving my point.

you're no visionairy. Bucky Fuller was. I follow his arguments, not yours.

Visionaries are often wrong. Feel free to follow him all you like... he's dead now, isn't he?

who cares? I'm not trying to convince people, I'm here to determine if there is any truth to your anti-thesis. Chances are it will take some of you years to integrate this understanding anyway, it doesnt just *pop* into existence when I have countered all arguments.

Well, let me know when you start countering arguments, and we'll see what happens.

again, a very ignorant and misinformed opinion. The socratic dialectic is used in the court of law, and thus we can say that all conflict resolution has been decided SOLEY on dialectic.

Hmmm... must be a different use of dialectic then. I admit to not being familiar with the word.

OTOH, with you constantly redefining words, and misspelling others...

ahh, so now your a mind reader. Hint, what goes on in objective reality in someone's head is an unknown. Your filling in the blanks with your philosophy and assuming it's true.

No, I'm basing what I said on my experiences with other human beings.

And I know more what goes on in people's heads than you might think possible.

Anyone can accept God in their hearts as true, that's not a problem. It's a problem when administrative decisions are made with God considered as an objective truth that is

Agreed... and unless you're going to get every single administrative person everywhere to drop the idea that their God is absolutely true, decisions will always be made in accordance with a person's inner faith, no matter what lip service they will pay.

In theory, it will make their ideas irrelevant and more difficult to be accepted as administrative decisions. It's not about changing what people believe, it's about altering the environment for discussion.

Explain. So far we see nothing like that occuring.

actually, I could consider the Muslim discussion to be the only failure, as thier behavior was not predicted by this process, i.e. they responded rationally when I predicted they would not. I'm still perplexed by that anomaly.

NO, you have said repeatedly that OS012 is about creating an environment in which discussion becomes win-win, where conflicts of ideas are resolved to the satisfaction of both sides.

So far, that hasn't happened.

You have a false idea of whatto look for. You're assuming the value is in everyone agreeing, and it's not, the value is in which truths advance and become considered, and which one's don't, and how behavior alters around a win win option when presented to find truth as opposed to a win lose option.

As I said, that hasn't happened yet.

dont confuse reductionists as all academics. Reductionism is a belief system and a philosophy.

It also works as the foundation of proper science.

Then your not following OS 012. It doesnt value one over the other, that's what believers and reductionists do, it simply relates both values to each other how they are functioning.

You're right - I'm not following OS012. It is meaningless.

the historical dialectic is hieghtend by the internet in ways which are almost impossible to model, I seriously doubt you have given that much consideration

Actually, I have. The Internet is interesting in many, many ways; but as a forum to move and shake the world, it is still largely irrelevent.

Why?

Because the Internet is a place where people choose to remain anonymous; where heated discussion only occurs because identity remains obscure; and where actual action is pushed aside. The Internet is the lazy man's path to 'doing something' - precisely because you can come here, post your piece, and disappear, never having actually done anything. The Internet is filled with lies, with false philosophies, with false prophets. Internet resources are always considered suspect until independantly verified. Internet sophists like you are a dime a dozen. In five years, all this discussion will be moot. In ten years, OS012 will be a forgotten chapter in the history of the internet. Maybe even less.

Others have come before you with their life-changing, world-changing philosophies, and ranted as you do about the absolute truth they brought with them. Some had websites, some don't. One thing always remains the same: after a while they leave, and after that, they disappear. Their ideas are forgotten in a sea of anonymity.

You're going to be no different.

I am winning because I am using OS 012. You are losing because your unable to advance any critical idea past mine, and refuse to accept that truth of that.

What truth? I've advanced my ideas quite successfully. It is you who refuse to accept that.

I think most people here are hypnotized quite deeply. I dont agree with your summation

Another misuse of words, then. Maybe you should spend some time consulting actual academic resources, rather than what the mauve butterflies tell you?

it assume the primacy of the objective/subjective.You're not paying attention.

Actually, I am. And there you just admitted it. You're including the subjective as a primal part of the basis for this system; yet, ultimately, subjective experience is a secondary phenomenon.

Where is your mystery, before life arose? Where is your mystery, after it dies?

where is Al-Sadr? What is Dark matter? What am I feeling?[EDIT: You know what I am feeling because I have posted that i am cranky today, not a valid example then] Where is Osama?

[EDIT] What is Osama Bin Laden Feeling?]

Al-Sadr is definitely somewhere. Dark matter is a concept created by astrophysicists to compensate for an apparent lack of mass. You are definitely feeling something. Osama is definitely somewhere. Osama is definitely feeling something.

From the objective viewpoint - the only viewpoint that matters - all of these questions have true answers. Not one of these questions is mystery.

That I don't have those answers is irrelevant.

With appropriate resources, I could give you all the true answers.

All you have demonstrated here is that you value ignorance as a truth value. It isn't.

Those are unknowns, versus known values such as what is the value for Pi? Where is the Eiffel Tower? How much does an M16A2 weigh, fully loaded? Where is the hypothalamus?

But all of those questions have true answers.

Tell me, how do you disable an MLRS launcher prior to missile launch, and stop it from firing, from the exterior?

That question, too, has a definite true answer. That you don't know it is irrelevant. But under your system, from what I can tell, you'll accept 'unknown' as a valid answer. You haven't actually said much about what to do with these unknown answers. Most people, even if they don't know, realize there is a true answer, and would seek it if they needed to know. On the other hand, if they didn't need to know the true answer, they wouldn't bother.

That's all your third value amounts to -it's an unresolved first value, and that's all it is.

If there is no objective unknown, then you have perfect answers regarding the knowledge of all of those questions.

And I have given them.

There are no objective unknowns. All questions have a true answer, and innumerable false answers. That we may not know those answers is irrelevant to the answer itself.

now your making stuff up as you go along. What system of logic are you using? A four value logic system to justify a two value system?

A proper logic system, which contains many appropriate values on many scales. You're attempting to cram a four value system onto a two value scale, and attempting to toss aside one of the four values. I'm simply demonstrating that any use of multiple scales - like known/unknown - is done a serious disservice by attempting to compress scales together.

Sorry, Rome, but the world simply cannot be broken down into binary, ternary, or quadranary systems. The world is a truly complicated place. Your oversimplifications are meaningless. Your 'third value' is nothing of the sort.

We dont need to classify knowledge any further than true, false, or u nknown. You're four values can't even address the questions I wrote above with any certainty what soever. Please do so and prove me wrong if I am mistaken.

Done and done.

truth values, in reality, are ternary. If you put known/unknown into a binary set, your simply compressing true and false knowns into one category, and then your defeating your own purpose without making a distinction for either one.

Now it's you that don't know what you're talking about.

Truth values, in reality, are binary. Knowledge values, in reality, are binary.

They are two different scales.

In ternary, we can analyze the false ideas to reveal further truth about the person making them. In known/unknown, we dont have anything to play with.

But using both scales, you have an honest complete picture. In ternary, you don't, and no, you can't analyze a false idea any better than you can in any and every other logic system.

I think it's working just fine.

Then you're deluding yourself.

But that's not particularly surprising.

 

[Z]

I have argued randi's false and misleading claim about steorn numerous times to mention on this thread.

Argued, yes. Successfully, no.

Their most recent post, btw, about the content of their contract with their jury, reveals even more succinctly that they intend to engage in fraudulent behavior. I believe I can predict their next moves: they are about to engage in publicity moves, in which they will release indistinct photos of their panel at work, discuss the extensive qualifications of their panel, and release short 'sound bytes' showing the awe and wonder expressed by their mystery judges.

Following that will be another suggestion that they will happily release this technology to further independent development... for a fee, of course.

Shortly after that will come some admission of financial hardship, and a sudden interest in seeking investors to allow the validation process to be finalized.

From there on down, it's the slippery slope, and the scam will eventually be revealed, while Sean & Co. take off to some tropical getaway location.

 

[jimbob]

Time to quote Derren Brown (hey, I've just finished reading it, and this quote struck me as appropriate).

Equally many people think that science inhabits a different world from the spirit, and has no right to trespas there. It certainly is a different world, but if one substitutes the word 'science' for 'real-world evidence' then perhaps the relevance of it becomes more apparent.

...

A person has every right to decide that unbiased, real-world evidence does not interest him, that he is happy to rely on his personal experience or unquestioned authority for what he believes to be true. H can contentedly go down that route as long as he has no wish to be taken seriously in a rational discussion of his beliefes and as long as he's not blowing anyone up because of them. No-one, however, who decides that scientific evidence is not for him and that his own experience or the stories of others is the be all and end all of deciding what's true ever has the right to call people searching for reliable, repeatable evidence narrow-minded. That is hypocracy of the most laughable kind.

Back to the OP.

There are milennia of observations (people die, things get damaged as they get older) that demonstrate the laws of thermodynamics; these have been explicitly known for more than 150 years. The basic laws can be simply stated as you can't get energy for nothing, at best you could only break even, if you could avoid waste, which is inevitable. (sorry for the gross simplification there)

STEORN, are claiming to somehow be the first exception ever to these laws, but haven't shown anyone how their system "works". They also targeted atheir audience at a group of people who are less likely to be scientifically literate, rathern than showing their (paradigm-shifting) technology to engineers and scientists. Nobel prizes wouldn't even come close if it were true; it would be far more significant than the theories of gravity and evolution.

But my guess is that it is (very slightly) more likely that babblefrog will spontaneously produce a work of classic prose whilst sitting at his keyboard.

I do not count references to loony tunes characters as classic prose.

Jim

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish, have you ever posted on these forums using any of the following usernames: Iacchus, Interesting Ian, Christophera, or Killtown?

arkan, please take off your pre-concieved bi-foculs about who you think I am or what you think I'm doing. It's taking you farther and farther away from objective reality.

why dont you have fun and answer that question using bivalent logic, or zaays' Ka-raazy four valued logic?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

arkan, please take off your pre-concieved bi-foculs about who you think I am or what you think I'm doing. It's taking you farther and farther away from objective reality.

why dont you have fun and answer that question using bivalent logic, or zaays' Ka-raazy four valued logic?

Yes, or no; have you ever posted on these forums using any of the following usernames: Iacchus, Interesting Ian, Christophera, or Killtown?

 

[jimbob]

Argued, yes. Successfully, no.

Their most recent post, btw, about the content of their contract with their jury, reveals even more succinctly that they intend to engage in fraudulent behavior. I believe I can predict their next moves: they are about to engage in publicity moves, in which they will release indistinct photos of their panel at work, discuss the extensive qualifications of their panel, and release short 'sound bytes' showing the awe and wonder expressed by their mystery judges.

Following that will be another suggestion that they will happily release this technology to further independent development... for a fee, of course.

Shortly after that will come some admission of financial hardship, and a sudden interest in seeking investors to allow the validation process to be finalized.

From there on down, it's the slippery slope, and the scam will eventually be revealed, while Sean & Co. take off to some tropical getaway location.

Are you psychic, then?

It's a mystery to me.

BTW: here is another "convincing" video about QI that Babbblefrog posted a link to over on badscience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ5cuv8PwYw

I posted it here rather than "humour", maybe I was wrong.

Any comments anyone?

Jim

 

[WWHP]

Yes, or no; have you ever posted on these forums using any of the following usernames: Iacchus, Interesting Ian, Christophera, or Killtown?

Your correct, that is a yes or no question, and until I answer, pick a truth value that gives you certainty til then.

 

[Ceritus]

This is the most freaking retarded thread ever, I know I didn't contribute anything with this comment other than observation but for ed's sake please dont feed the trolls.

 

[aggle-rithm]

no, it's a way to advance truth values through an environment where 20 people want to strangle you.

Yes, but didn't your "framework", or your inability to explain it, create that environment?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Your correct, that is a yes or no question, and until I answer, pick a truth value that gives you certainty til then.

Or formulate a new question that is an extension of the second.

"Do I know the answer to the first question?" Yes or no?

See, the third value is not necessary.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Or formulate a new question that is an extension of the second.

"Do I know the answer to the first question?" Yes or no?

See, the third value is not necessary.

I had an interesting thought whilst munching my dinner. BF's "third value" is someone analogous to recursion in programming. Yes, it can be applied usefully in some certain circumstances and be a good solution, but anything that can be solved recursively can be solved iteratively.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Your correct, that is a yes or no question, and until I answer, pick a truth value that gives you certainty til then.

Fine, then a non-answer from you will be taken as an admission of sock-puppetry, and will be reported to the mods as such.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You are equivocating as you changed the meaning of "moot" to "mysticism" and then used it to prop up your idea. That is equivocation.

I did not deconstruct your example into three values, I said that if there is additional information than the two claims can be evaluated. If their is not then they can not be evaluated and have no value. If something has no value then it contributes nothing to determining the "truthiness" of the claim. If Claim X or Claim Y can not be evaluated then whether or not Claim X or Y has been made doesn't matter; they may as well have never been made. Nothing is gained by placing them in a third state which indicates nothing more than they have been made and are unevaluatable.

To put it another way, "Can Claim X be evaluated? No? Then who the fek cares what Claim X is?"

I wanted to add to this, that the example put forth by BF demonstrates a shortcoming of his "third value" and displays it to be little more than the same God of the Gaps argument used by ID'ers.

The factual accuracy of the claim of Al Sadr's location, as made by either country, is completely independent from that claiming country's intent. It is either an accurate factual representation of Al Sadr's objective geographic location, or it is not. Any intent at falsity by the claiming country is a seperate claim, or statement, which can be analyzed seperately from the claim of geographic location and, is itself, a true/false value. Now, more information my be derived by having evaluated both statements; and/or the probability of the validity of one may be influenced by having evaluated the other; but at the end of the day they are both binary evaluatable statements.

Rather than treating the meta-statement about the country's lying or truthtelling as a seperate binary evaluatable statement, BF would rather treat it as a mystical "unknown" "third value". By doing such it is actually removing value from the analysis, rather than adding it. And is little different from a IDer biologist looking at the eye of a fish, not seeing how it could have evolved, throwing up his/her hands and saying, "Goddidit!"

 

[WWHP]

This is the most freaking retarded thread ever, I know I didn't contribute anything with this comment other than observation but for ed's sake please dont feed the trolls.

therefore I wont consider your comment of anything valuable, trollish one

 

[Dean Morrison]

Anyone care to speculate why Bubblefish seems to have so much time on his hands???